MANAGING DIRECTOR AKBARABAD KISAN SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD Vs. AUTHORITY ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER BIJNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSPITE of sufficient service no one has appeared on behalf of respondent no.3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent no.3 Sant Ram claiming to be an employee of the petitioner, Sahkari Samiti. filed a case being case no. P.W.A. 2 of 1991 before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 complaining that some wages due to him had not been paid. The case was decided on 15.01.1991 against the petitioner by the Authority concerned at Bijnor and it was directed that petitioner should pay Rs.4180/- to respondent no.3 as unpaid wages and leave encashment (salary for the period of leave). Ten times penalty (Rs.41800/-) was also imposed (Annexure VI). In pursuance of the said order proceedings for recovery were initiated in the form of case no. 51 of 1991 before respondent no.2 C.J.M. Bijnor. Sub-Sections 1(4) and (5) of Payment of Wages Act 1936 are quoted below: (4) It applies in the first instance to the payment of wages to persons employed in any factory, to persons employed (otherwise than in a factory) upon any railway by a railway administration or, either directly or through a sub-contractor, by a person fulfilling a contract with a railway administration, and to persons employed in an industrial or other establishment specified in sub-clauses (a) to (g) of clause(ii) of section 2. (5) The State Government may, after giving three months' notice of its intention of so doing, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend the provisions of this Act or any of them to the payment of wages to any class of persons employed in any establishment or class of establishments specified by the Central Government or a State Government under sub-clause (h) of clause (ii) of section 2. Petitioner being Sahkari Samiti (Cooperative Society) is not covered by Section 1(4) of the Act. State Government has not issued any notification in respect of petitioner society or societies like petitioner under Section 1(5) of the Act. Accordingly the Act does not apply upon the petitioner. In view of the above impugned order is set aside and it is directed that no proceedings for recovery of the amount under the impugned order shall be initiated or continued. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. The amount deposit by the petitioner under interim order passed in this writ petition shall be refunded to the petitioner along with accrued interest if any.